Synergizing BIM and RIBA in architectural practice – technology workflow efficiencies, challenges, and insights

ABSTRACT

Productivity improvements are constrained by insufficient consideration of technology adoption within professions. This study clarifies the limited knowledge between BIM and RIBA architectural workflow synergies and proposes a framework to improve identified inefficiencies. Consequently, a qualitative approach consisting of 10 interviews with architects was conducted to understand their personal experiences and opportunities for improvement. The findings revealed that multidisciplinary design cooperation and risk reduction are major possibilities for workflow improvements in the design stage, while site communication and error detection increase the need for an architect’s presence onsite during the construction stage. Additionally, this study identifies interoperability, barriers to change, and design inflexibility as professional drawbacks of using BIM. These findings provide hierarchical data to form an architect’s BIM matrix, which aims to maximise opportunities and reduce challenges in BIM implementation. This study highlights the importance of considering both technical and human factors in BIM adoption and uses management theories to explain how architects can better utilise technology to enhance their practice.

KEYWORDS:

• Productivity
• technology adoption
• workflow
• critical success factors
• human factor
• computer-aided design
• construction
• Labour
• BIM

Introduction

Average productivity levels in the construction industry remain consistently below the UK’s average (J. Martin, 2021). This poor performance is because the rapidly evolving ecosystem of the construction sector is heavily dependent on the rate at which computer technology is modernised, which in turn dictates the improvement possibilities offered through complex software and computerisation (Arayici, Egbu, & Coates, 2012). The industry, pronounced to modernise or die, with notable limitations resting on professional practice (Farmer, 2016; H. Martin, Garner, Manewa, & Chadee, 2024). Unfortunately, not much guidance is available on how to improve professional practice.

Technology adoption in architecture, like most architecture, engineering, and construction (AEC) professions, is still relatively young compared to the lifespan of the profession. The architect’s workflow hub, previously the drafting board, can now be found on their computer screen, reflecting the most profound transformation of the profession (Cheshire, 2017; Garber, 2014). Before the advent of computer-aided design, the workflows and duties ingrained in the architectural profession remained essentially unchanged. This inertia is because innovation implementation is perceived as challenging in this fragmented, project-based sector where methods have been refined into practices and further codified (Lindblad & Guerrero, 2020). Architects transitioned to desktop computing in the 1980s and 1990s with CAD, and the building information modelling (BIM) transition has been underway for two decades with leaders in the field, such as Frank Gehry and Zaha Hadid, exploring parametric design and developing new design workflows. Such bold, innovative approaches attracted criticisms as a type of stigmatisation and were dismissed for using computer tools in architecture that were traditionally reserved for aeronautical design (Wu, Ho, Lai, & Chen, 2016). Currently, there is a strong desire to digitise the built environment using BIM (Charef, 2022), and as BIM-compliant tools and methods are not explicitly designed for architects but for a group of professionals, a possible disconnection exists between the BIM process and the architect’s workflow.

In the post-modern era, decision-making to design and bring a project to fruition heavily relies on managing the risk and quality of complex interactions between the architect and other project partners (Hohpe, Ozkaya, Zdun, & Zimmermann, 2016; Siva & London, 2012) in which increasingly digital tools play a crucial role. However, several architects have been criticised for their perceived inadequacy in keeping pace with the continuously evolving digital requirements of the industry, rendering them ill-equipped to effectively navigate the risks inherent in contemporary construction execution challenges (L. Cohen, Wilkinson, Arnold, & Finn, 2005; Lindblad & Guerrero, 2020; Wright, 2012). According to some scholars, neglecting to purposefully consider the relevance of digital technology could lead to the relegation of the profession to a non-essential position or make it vulnerable to replacement by computer-based systems (Garber, 2014).

BIM is a widely used tool in construction projects that aims to improve practice by managing building information and data, integrating project processes, creating a collaborative environment, and promoting lean and sustainable construction (Azhar, Khalfan, & Maqsood, 2012; Bryde, Broquetas, & Volm, 2013). Several studies have shown that BIM deployment in design workflows can boost the architect’s ability to visualise the project and spot faults on site before construction begins (Kerosuo, Miettinen, Paavola, Mäki, & Korpela, 2015; Sebastian, 2011). However, there are challenges in the implementation of BIM in construction, such as impeded seamless integration with professional practice (Celik, Petri, & Rezgui, 2023), lack of research on administrative tasks (Alazmeh, Underwood, & Coates, 2018; Kerosuo et al., 2015; Ma, Xiong, Olawumi, Dong, & Chan, 2018; Penttilä, 2007), lack of flexibility and interoperability, and limited case studies on the effectiveness of BIM in architect-led projects (Becerik-Gerber, Jazizadeh, Li, & Calis, 2012). These challenges highlight the mere implementation of information systems does not guarantee efficient collaboration; rather, their effective utilisation is impeded by the absence of defined strategies that take into account organisational and project requirements (Zanni, Soetanto, & Ruikar, 2017). Contrarily, the process cannot be explicitly defined due to its complexity, level of specialisation, and the specific requirements of each undertaking (Zanni et al., 2017).

In response to these challenges, scholars have examined approaches for integrating BIM with architects’ design, construction, and administrative activities. For example, in design development, Mahdavinejad, Bemanian, Abolvardi, and Mohammadmehdi Elhamian (2012) and Noorifard and Mehdizadeh Saraj (2018) assert the importance of architects and emphasise the need for collaboration between architects and structural engineers in seismic-prone regions. However, their work lacks quantitative evaluation methods for workflow complexities. Javidannia, Bemanian, Mahdavinejad, Nejat, and Javidannia (2021) propose a generative design workflow for tall buildings’ performance based on the decisions made by architects. L. Wang (2022) introduces EvoMass for optimisation-based design exploration, and C. Chen and Tang (2019) highlight the potential of BIM-based workflows for asset value and sustainability. The lack of standardisation in previous workflow processes has resulted in inefficiencies, and future research should focus on a systematic evaluation, development of tools, and standardisation for efficient data exchange. Most importantly, the discussion must be framed within a standardised professional context such as the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) 2020.

Architecture scholars have studied BIM's impact on designs since the 1970s. However, it is essential to examine architects’ relationship with technology and formulate implementation strategies, given the continuously evolving technology environment (Gamal, Nashaat, Shahda, & Nosier, 2024). Despite growing interest in BIM implementation, few studies have focused on developing implementation strategies or the associated challenges specific to professions (Panagiotidou, Pitt, & Lu, 2022). While architects’ perspectives and experiences using BIM have been recognised, our search produced no research aggregating workflow changes and BIM implementation considering the RIBA, 2020 stage of work. The implications of linking the BIM process to an architect's workflow in a rapidly changing technological environment remain unknown (Vass & Gustavsson, 2017). From a practical perspective, architects must understand and apply the new processes inherent in BIM to improve workflow (Brandín & Abrishami, 2021). By investigating the strengths and limitations of the experience between profession and technology, a BIM matrix is derived to guide the evolution of the cultural, social, and operating environment in which the profession changes as work progresses. The study focuses on BIM use within traditional procurement channels in the UK, as defined by UK law and RIBA stages of work. The findings can change architects’ unfavourable perception of BIM and serve as a reference for discussing the relationship between BIM and architecture. The BIM process and the architect’s workflow must be interlinked to provide improved project efficiency and minimise the risk of rework (Tabarroki, Nazari, & Banihashemi, 2024).

BIM and the architect’s workflow

The architect's function in the built environment has evolved through a dynamic interplay between historical authority and modern challenges. Architects have traditionally held considerable influence and played a crucial role in project success, as Garber (2014) and Schmidt and Buxmann (2011) emphasised. Nevertheless, the emergence of modern procurement methods in standard forms of contracts such as NEC, FIDIC, and JCT has resulted in a change in the architect's duties. For example, in design and build projects, contractors lead the design and delivery process (H. Martin & Ramjarrie, 2021). The reallocation of responsibilities changes how risks are managed, highlighting the contractor's heightened level of responsibility. Concurrently, architectural duties’ complexity and diverse character go beyond conventional standards, requiring technical, administrative, organisational, leadership, and communication abilities (Coates et al., 2010).

Gardner, Hosseini, Rameezdeen, and Chileshe (2014) and Eadie, Browne, Odeyinka, McKeown, and McNiff (2013) highlight the complex stages of the architect's workflow, which include schematic design, construction documentation, and the vital incorporation of BIM. This development has occurred alongside historical changes. BIM, a comprehensive methodology that extends beyond 3D models, necessitates coordinating information management during each stage of the project (Koutsogiannis & Berntsen, 2017) – the UK government's implementation of the BIM Level 2 mandate in 2016 aims to establish uniform procedures. However, the effectiveness of this initiative depends on the internal factors that drive architectural businesses (Shahruddin, Zairul, & Haron, 2021). Architects encounter difficulties establishing BIM information needs and guaranteeing the coherence and comprehensiveness of models despite existing standards and guidelines (Leygonie, Motamedi, & Iordanova, 2022).

In addition, the increasing complexity of modern projects has diminished the conventional leadership position of architects, resulting in a scarcity of practitioners proficient in BIM (Frimpong & Dansoh, 2018). Shahruddin et al. (2021) emphasise the necessity of studying how architects manage their professional identity and position in the digital age. This view raises two crucial questions, which we will explore in this study:

Q1: What limiting context and opportunities do architects perceive when using BIM technology in their workflow?

Q2: How can architectural workflow within a RIBA, 2020 context be better synergised with the digital responsibilities of BIM?

Transparent workflow processes in the architectural profession are crucial for successfully deploying BIM, highlighting the need for ongoing research (Ganah & John, 2015). The combination of historical insights, current difficulties, and future-oriented investigations can provide a comprehensive framework for understanding the intricate landscape of architectural practice and its connection with BIM.

RIBA and the BIM implementation knowledge gap

A standardised set of workflows for architects in the United Kingdom is delineated in the RIBA Stages of Work (2020). The stages illustrated in Figure 1 specify the sequential actions required to achieve contractual milestones for each project, from definition to decommissioning, explicitly highlighting the design, construction, and administrative workflow processes.

Figure 1. RIBA stage of works, including key deliverables.

A review of existing studies exhibits varying degrees of relatedness to each other, both in terms of their thematic alignment and their contributions to the broader understanding of the RIBA Stage of work (SoW). Celik et al. (2023) and Charef (2022) both align closely with the RIBA SoW framework, albeit in different ways. Celik et al. (2023) explore the integration of blockchain technology with BIM across the RIBA SoW stages, aiming to enhance collaboration and process efficiency. Charef (2022), on the other hand, proposes a BIM-based framework to support circular economy principles, leveraging the RIBA SoW to clarify asset lifecycle phases and stakeholder roles. Despite their thematic differences, both studies underscore the importance of aligning technological innovations with the structured stages of the RIBA SoW for effective implementation and impact. Both studies emphasise the role of BIM as an enabler for innovation and process optimisation. However, they diverge in their empirical validation approaches, with Celik et al. (2023) lacking field studies and large-scale trials, while Charef (2022) framework lacks empirical validation altogether.

Similarly, Alwan and Jones (2022) and Kurwi, Demian, Blay, and Hassan (2021) directly address collaboration and efficiency within the RIBA SoW framework. Alwan and Jones (2022) focus on environmental sustainability by automating embodied carbon calculations, aligning with the sustainability considerations embedded within the RIBA SoW stages. Kurwi et al. (2021) emphasise collaboration dynamics during rail project design, developing a Collaborative Stage of work (CPW) to streamline processes within the RIBA SoW framework. Both studies highlight the importance of integrating BIM tools and methodologies with the structured stages of the RIBA SoW to achieve project objectives efficiently, albeit in different contexts. However, they both suffer from a lack of empirical validation, which limits their applicability in real-world scenarios.

Jones (2020) and Alfieri, Seghezzi, Sauchelli, Di Giuda, and Masera (2020) delve into organisational-level challenges and frameworks within the context of the RIBA SoW. Jones (2020) assesses BIM uptake at the organisational level using the RIBA framework, proposing an evaluation framework for BIM competency aligned with the RIBA SoW stages. Meanwhile, Alfieri et al. (2020) suggest a framework for incorporating DfMA using BIM, drawing on the structured approach of the RIBA SoW to optimise prefabrication and modular construction processes. Both studies highlight the importance of integrating BIM strategies with the established stages of the RIBA SoW to drive organisational efficiency and project success. However, they both lack comprehensive empirical validation and fail to address the broader industry impacts of their proposed frameworks.

Azizi, Tan, and Azizi (2021) and Amin and Abanda (2019) offer insights into specific challenges and impacts of BIM adoption within the RIBA SoW context. Azizi et al. (2021) explore changes in quantity surveyors’ work practices due to BIM adoption, aligning with the RIBA SoW stages where quantity surveying tasks are integral. Amin and Abanda (2019) investigate the integration of BIM with the RIBA SoW in the Egyptian construction industry, highlighting cultural and organisational barriers. Both studies emphasise the need to align BIM adoption strategies with the structured stages of the RIBA SoW in order to overcome implementation challenges and achieve project objectives effectively. Despite their contextual differences, both studies underscore the importance of addressing barriers to successful BIM integration.

Mustapha, Mohamad, and Noorhani (2021) stand somewhat apart from the other studies focusing on interior design workflow in Malaysia. While not directly addressing BIM integration, their proposed framework aligns with the broader goal of streamlining project delivery processes. However, its applicability to integrated BIM-based practices remains to be explored.

The reviewed studies demonstrate a strong alignment with the structured stages and objectives of the RIBA Stage of work, emphasising the importance of integrating BIM tools and methodologies within this framework to enhance collaboration, efficiency, and project outcomes within the AEC industry. However, they exhibit varying degrees of relatedness due to differences in thematic focus, empirical validation approaches, and contextual considerations. A generalised understanding derived from these studies underscores the importance of addressing organisational, technological, and contextual challenges to successful BIM adoption while also emphasising the need for comprehensive empirical validation to ensure the practical applicability of proposed frameworks and approaches within the construction industry.

Method

Figure 2 provides an overview of the research methodology employed in this study, which adopts a qualitative approach to delve into architects’ perspectives, attitudes, behaviours, and experiences regarding BIM implementation. Qualitative research, as advocated by Creswell (2014), is chosen due to its emphasis on exploring and comprehending human behaviour within social contexts, aligning well with the objectives of this study. This approach facilitates open dialogue, enabling a thorough examination of the concepts under investigation and allowing theories to emerge organically (Fellows & Liu, 2021). Moreover, qualitative research fosters self-understanding, knowledge acquisition, and self-acceptance, enhancing the richness of insights gathered (Opsal et al., 2016). By delving into individual viewpoints, qualitative research offers valuable findings that capture the nuances of participants’ experiences (Rovai, Baker, & Ponton, 2013). However, researchers must be mindful of saturation, indicating theoretical sufficiency in understanding, as highlighted by Nelson (2017). This method prioritises mapping and analysing opinions rather than interpreting underlying ideologies behind participants’ actions (Adams, 2015), thus aligning with the aims and objectives of this study by translating architects’ personal experiences and opinions into actionable data.

Figure 2. Methodology summary.

The study primarily relies on open-ended semi-structured interviews as the primary source of information, complemented by secondary sources such as literature. Open-ended questions facilitate the exploration of unexpected data, allowing for supplementary inquiries to uncover deeper insights (Adams, 2015). Incorporating a literature review into the development of semi-structured interviews provides a tailored understanding of individual architects’ BIM perspectives and experiences, fostering detailed discussions on specific aspects of the process. Employing an interactive approach to question design enables flexibility, allowing questions to evolve based on participants’ insights (Maxwell, 2012). By combining these strategies, the study aims to enhance understanding and execute a well-planned sequence, as supported by existing literature (Creswell & Clark, 2017; Rovai et al., 2013).

Questionnaire development and administration

The systematic process of the review facilitates the identification of key themes and areas of interest, enabling the categorisation of interview questions and the structuring of subsequent findings. The literature review specifically delves into the impact of BIM on architects’ workflows, focusing on three distinct categories: architectural design processes and BIM, construction monitoring and BIM, and architectural administrative activities and BIM. These categories were selected based on recurring subtopics highlighted across multiple secondary sources, as corroborated by Gardner et al. (2014), Eadie et al. (2013), and Xu, Ma, and Ding (2014). Figure 3 succinctly encapsulates the interconnectedness between the identified themes and the questions explored throughout the study.

Figure 3. Interview questions and research link.

Dawson (2002) outlined various qualitative interview methods, including unstructured, semi-structured, and structured approaches. For this study, the semi-structured interview method proved most suitable, offering flexibility while maintaining a framework for comparative analysis (Stuckey, 2013). This approach allows for follow-up questions tailored to each interviewee's experiences, aligning with the study's aims and objectives. To maximise information retrieval, questions were designed to elicit open-ended responses, resulting in approximately thirty-five questions per interview. The initial five questions established participants’ backgrounds, while the subsequent thirty delved into each aspect of the architectural workflow. Questions were structured to address both the opportunities and challenges associated with BIM implementation in design processes. Opportunities were explored through inquiries into how BIM enhanced early design workflows and its impact on subsequent project stages, while challenges prompted reflections on obstacles encountered and strategies for resolution.

Additionally, interviews examined site monitoring efficiencies during construction and the role of the Common Data Environment (CDE) in facilitating information sharing. Questions were prepared in advance to ensure consistency and depth in responses, enhancing the overall value and quality of the interview process (R. A. Cohen et al., 2016). This approach allows for the emergence of unforeseen insights, enriching the research findings (Patton, 1999). Prior to interviews, participants received electronic information sheets and consent forms. Throughout the interviews, architects were asked to reflect on how BIM influenced their workflows across the stages of traditional project development, aligning with the RIBA stages of work (RIBA, 2020) and BIM level 2 lifecycle delivery plan (NBS, 2016).

Participant selection

Qualitative research serves to describe, understand, analyse, and clarify human experiences (Patton, 1999; Polkinghorne, 2005). Given the uniqueness of each experience, the sample size in qualitative research is subjective (Howard-Grenville, Nelson, Vough, & Zilber, 2021), with participants and materials selected to shape the examined experience rather than adhere to statistical inference standards (Polkinghorne, 2005). Instead, the sample size is determined by the richness of data obtained. While a large number of interviews may complicate data processing or dilute insights (Austin & Sutton, 2014), insufficient data can lead to superficial conclusions (Austin & Sutton, 2014).

In this study, deliberate sample selection utilised intentional sampling, focusing on a subset of the larger population that represents specific industry characteristics (Naoum, 2012), especially considering variations in BIM adoption among practitioners (Lützkendorf & Balouktsi, 2020). To ensure comprehensive coverage, various positions within architects’ workflows were captured, allowing for a nuanced analysis of BIM's influence based on role and experience. The recruitment of ten architects was informed by data saturation, where further data collection becomes unviable as enough information has been gathered to duplicate the study (Guest, Bunce, & Johnson, 2006). Data saturation enhances content validity and completeness (Fusch & Ness, 2015) and depends on population size, data richness, and depth (Burmeister & Aitken, 2012; Dibley, 2011).

The selection of ten experts facilitated a thorough investigation of research concerns, ensuring diverse and representative results within the industry segment. Table 1 provides details of the participants involved in the study.

Table 1. Participants’ position and experience.

Participant number	Role within organisation	Years of experience
1	Junior Architect	2
2	Architect	3
3	Project Architect	5
4	Senior Architect	15
5	Associate Architect	12
6	Architectural Director	15
7	Project Architect	6
8	Architect	4
9	Architect	3
10	Design manager/Architect	3

Interview analysis method

In this study, Decision Explorer was employed for analysis, facilitating the creation of cognitive maps – a graphical representation of causes and effects derived from participant dialogue (Mingers & Rosenhead, 2004). This method was well-suited for the study's objectives, as it visually depicts thoughts, feelings, values, and attitudes, along with their interrelationships, allowing for in-depth analysis (López de Aguileta, Torras-Gómez, García-Carrión, & Flecha, 2020). Decision Explorer serves as a valuable tool for investigating complex and ambiguous qualitative information (Banxia Software, 2020).

The researchers followed Banxia Software (2020) guidance to map selected concepts. In the first step, interviewee transcript challenges or opportunities were distilled into concise phrases. Domain analysis is used to understand and characterise the domain or subject area by identifying and capturing the essential concepts, relationships, constraints, and behaviours within the domain. Subsequently, relevant concepts were linked to establish a means-end hierarchy, with arrows indicating causal relationships or support. Domain analysis revealed major issues from participants’ experiences, with concepts representing them as complex. Inbound and outbound link analysis highlighted concepts with the most connections, signifying their significance (Banxia Software, 2020). The central analysis further examined link complexity at different levels from the centre. Additionally, cluster analysis grouped concepts with similar meanings or themes, allowing for the identification of common themes within the cognitive map. A focal theme was extracted from each cluster for further investigation.

Following these analyses, the top five concepts from Domain, Central, and Cluster analyses were compared using an interview synopsis. By connecting the highest-ranked themes, opportunities and challenges were identified, offering insights into areas for improvement and potential solutions related to BIM implementation. Overall, Decision Explorer facilitated structured and efficient data analysis, yielding valuable insights into architects’ attitudes, behaviours, and experiences concerning BIM implementation.

Developing the BIM matrix

The findings are incorporated into a BIM matrix that contributes to streamlining BIM processes within architectural practices. Migilinskas, Popov, Juocevicius, and Ustinovichius (2013) suggested how the BIM process can be translated into a matrix. The components used in this research are as follows–

1. Develop the project design, construction and operations strategy based on simulated technologies.

2. Ensure the integrated management of information and graphical data flows.

3. Transform individual executors into a team to provide complex solutions.

4. Perform life cycle operations and improve efficiencies to lower costs.

Research bias

This study delved into the utilisation of BIM in architectural design and construction processes, presenting challenges in mitigating confirmation bias. To address this, interview participants were encouraged to expand on their thoughts and personal encounters with BIM, particularly regarding its potential opportunities during the design phases. However, the breadth and depth of responses significantly increased when additional inquiries were made regarding design flexibility and efficiency. It became evident that confirmation bias posed a greater risk among participants less familiar with BIM in specific workflow stages. To counteract this, conversations were steered towards relatable examples of architects’ work processes, enhancing specificity and minimising bias. Notably, all interviews were conducted by a professional architect specialising in BIM, ensuring a nuanced understanding of the subject matter.

Results

Figure 4 summarises each interviewee's top-ranked findings per domain, central, cluster analysis, cognitive map, and word cloud frequency. For interviewee #1, 48 concepts were identified from the cognitive map, of which 15 were categorised as challenges and 35 as opportunities. A concept refers to an abstract construct that symbolises a fundamental element in the domain being examined, often expressed using terminology specific to the domain (Banxia Software, 2020). The domain analysis concluded that concept 12 obtained the most links (9). This concept highlights that BIM offers an opportunity to communicate early design ideas to the design team and client. All 48 concepts were analysed using a central analysis for interviewee #1, and the results indicate that the positive concepts 12 (19 out of 33 concepts) had the most links. Mixed concepts that are not considered important include 38, 46, 2, 4 and 21, as they gained the lowest number of links. Cluster 1 from the cluster analysis highlights BIM's many managerial prospects for architects, focusing on the Central Data Environment (CDE) as a key platform for workflow improvements. Cluster 2 emphasises how BIM-enabled interdisciplinary design team cooperation reduces site mistakes by improving coordination. Cluster 3 shows how BIM simplifies design communication, allowing architects to anticipate design issues and avoid expensive mistakes later in the project. Cluster 4 denotes supply chain team interoperability issues, especially when architects work with non-BIM proficient teams, highlighting risks and inefficiencies. Finally, Cluster 5 sheds light on how BIM affects stakeholder participation and emphasises how important it is for promoting positive relationships with third parties like consultants and Building Control officials. These clusters show how BIM adoption in architectural practice affects management effectiveness, collaborative dynamics, design communication, team interoperability, and stakeholder involvement. A similar analysis was carried out for the remaining participants, and the dominant context of either opportunity or challenges was identified. Ten interviews yielded 470 discrete concepts related to the architect’s workflow. The researchers generated sufficient concepts to ensure thoroughness, exhaustion, and conceptual depth of analysis, as (Nelson, 2017) recommended.

Figure 4. Combined interview summary.

The responses underwent further analysis, summarisation, and grouping based on project phases, as illustrated in Figure 5. Key concepts from this analysis were then mapped and cross-referenced to generate a synopsis for each interviewee, exemplified by interviewee #1 (junior Architect) in Figure 6. Workflows were categorised into design phases 1–3, construction stages 4–6, and administrative categories. Design (stages 1–3) emphasised early collaboration, accountability, and communication, while construction (stages 4–6) focused on accuracy, constructability, and clash detection. Administrative aspects (stages 4–6) included increased confidence, communication, and information quality. An overarching summary is provided in Figure 7. The subsequent section will explore each project stage and administrative context to comprehend the associated opportunities and challenges.

Figure 5. Project stage concept summary.

Figure 6. Concept type comparison for interviewee #1.

Figure 7. Overall summary of interviewees.

Design stages 1–3 – opportunities

This study used domain, central, and cluster analysis to investigate the positive concepts associated with design stages 1–3. The participants emphasised the importance of multidisciplinary collaboration in the design process and confirmed that BIM provides significant benefits, such as improved efficiency, reduced risk, and better quality. These findings align with social exchange theory, which proposes that individuals engage in collaborative behaviour to maximise their benefits and minimise costs. Overall, these benefits will improve project outcomes by reducing the time required and improving the accuracy and reliability of the design process (L. Chen & Luo, 2014; Ding, Zuo, Wu, & Wang, 2015; Kerosuo et al., 2015; Love, 2010). The results also revealed that senior architects focused more on managerial activities and less on the design processes, while less experienced architects emphasised hands-on design processes and the benefits of time savings and more informed design judgments. This finding highlights the importance of considering different perspectives and expertise in workflow design and, more importantly, a possible knowledge deficiency, which Davies, McMeel, and Wilkinson (2017) identified among senior professionals accounting for resistance to BIM adoption.[open-strick]

Design stages 1–3 – challenges

The results provide a nuanced perspective on the various challenges architects face in using BIM in the early design stages (1–3) of architectural design. The findings highlight the difficulty in implementing the technical requirements of BIM during these stages because of stringent programme deadlines and the fluidity requirements of early sketching. The consequent effect makes making an accurate BIM model by early milestone dates harder and a compromise to balance or minimise the psychological burden that various orders of information fusion and decision-making might take beyond the impact of anchoring effects. The study also identified a tension between the need for design freedom and flexibility and the constraints created by the BIM process.

Less experienced software users were keener on identifying difficulties in the software-based design process. Participants pointed to limitations such as time constraints, lack of software flexibility, and rigidity of the design process, which hinder the development of bespoke designs.

This view somewhat aligns with previous research by Tabarroki et al. (2024), Miettinen, Kerosuo, Metsälä, and Paavola (2018) and Holzer (2007), who expressed concerns regarding the flexibility of BIM methods in early-stage design. Additionally, the study sheds light on the potential challenges posed by clients who may be ignorant of the BIM processes. Participants also noted that smaller businesses without research and development budgets might not support the use of BIM because of the perceived usefulness in enhancing job performance or simplification, as Davis (1989) technology adoption theory explains. Smaller organisations that lack a dedicated budget for research and development may not notice the immediate advantages of deploying BIM software, which requires an investment in training and technology. Participants may regard technology as a luxury instead of a need.

Construction/monitoring stages 4–6 – opportunities

Realising the positive aspects of BIM in the later stages of building construction is critical for ensuring project success. Without consideration of the proficiency or level of experience, the participants, including architects, architectural directors, and architectural associates, emphasised the importance of improved communication with the site. J. Wang, Wang, Shou, and Xu (2014) support this assertion that BIM could enhance communication between the architect, supply chain, and contractor, better understanding the architect’s design objective and providing high-quality information. Using BIM was seen as a way to reduce errors and conflicts at the job site by providing visualisation capabilities and embedded technical information. The potential of BIM to identify future problems and provide early design solutions was emphasised as critical for avoiding expensive costs associated with changes made later in the construction process (Sebastian, 2011). The study's results showed that the visualisation capabilities provided by BIM could offer architects an advantage in identifying deviations, allowing them to stay ahead of the construction process and preserve their original design intent (Becerik-Gerber & Kensek, 2010; Hardin & McCool, 2015).

Construction/monitoring stages 4–6 – challenges

The primary challenge faced in the BIM sector is the shortage of trained workers, which is compounded by a shortfall in investment for training, software, and hardware. This observation was echoed by participants 2 and 9 and was supported by previous research conducted by L. Chen and Luo (2014) and Coates et al. (2010). Cited reasons for this shortfall included the complexity of BIM software and processes, associated human resources costs and software license fees, despite the elapsed time since L. Chen and Luo (2014) work, these findings still hold as some of these difficulties may be attributable to the fact that various project team members use different versions of the same programme (Ding et al., 2015). Also, BIM's effectiveness relies heavily on users’ skills and experience. In addition to the shortage of trained workers, interoperability issues faced by design teams and supply chain stakeholders are also significant challenges. Despite industry-wide standards to facilitate data movement across platforms, the varying levels of skills and experience challenge the achievement of effective interoperability. As Kerosuo et al. (2015) and Alazmeh et al. (2018) highlighted, managing a team with varying skill levels in essential software is one of the significant challenges architects face in BIM projects, as this compromises data quality and real-time availability. High-quality data is crucial for automating architectural operations to eliminate confusion among the design team and minimise onsite problems. The quality of data affects user experience, safety, and project outcomes. However, it is important to understand data limitations to avoid difficulties related to the completeness, consistency, dependability, and accuracy. Zayas-Cabán, Okubo, and Posnack (2023) emphasised that evidence-based processes, when used with industry consensus standards, may eliminate the need for ad hoc communication, increase job dependability and repeatability, and facilitate automation method reuse.

Finally, participants 6 and 10, who were junior architects and design managers, respectively, did not present high-scoring difficult concepts for stages 4–6. This could be attributed to a lack of experience in site monitoring activities. However, the top-ranked concepts showed a tendency among participants 1, 2, and 8, all of whom claimed that there were challenges within the industry that lacked interoperability throughout the workflows for phases 4–6. This view highlights the need for team interoperability, regardless of familiarity with BIM processes.

Administrative/operational responsibilities- opportunities

Participants agreed on the benefits of BIM in improving management processes, communication, quality of work and the CDE. These benefits are further supported by the PDSI Construction consultants (2019) and Wright (2012) research findings, which highlight BIM’s ability to streamline planning and building control procedures and enhance workflow characteristics such as value and competitiveness. The impact of BIM on reducing rework and conflicts and improving quality, communication, and problem-solving was emphasised by participants 3, 7, and 8. The architectural director (2) and associate (3) emphasised the positive effect of BIM on delivery speed and quality, while junior architects acknowledged its role in improving team communication. Both the architectural director (2) and junior architect (10) recognise the importance of providing traceable and auditable information. These findings align with participant 2’s emphasis on the trust that BIM instils in project delivery. Gaining support and confidence from key players is crucial for designing and implementing effective automation solutions.

Open communication is essential to define clear, mutually agreed-upon goals and specify what deliveries are designed to enhance, how they are expected to perform, and what BIM will and will not replace. If inadequate training and communication confuse the projected advantages of BIM, confidence may quickly fade. Consequently, architectural operations automation solutions must be reliable, accurate, and safe to ensure project success (Zayas-Cabán et al., 2023). This leads to decreased ambiguity, fewer conflicts, and increased quality and efficiency, ultimately freeing up time for architects to concentrate on delivering their duties with greater promptness and precision. This has been documented by participants (1, 5, 7, and 10) in this research.

Administrative/operational responsibilities – challenges

BIM implementation during the administrative phase is not without challenges. Participants 5, 7, and 9 shed light on the challenges architects face in fulfilling the administrative duties required for BIM. As Emmitt (2010) and Hasan and Rasheed (2019) have discussed, BIM can often produce a difficult collaborative environment owing to incompatible fee splits, the unclear scope of work, and varying management platforms. This perspective was echoed by participants 1, 6, and 8, who highlighted the interoperability obstacles between team members. Explanations provided are embedded in the social dynamics emanating from the distinct identity of the separate teams coming together to form a project execution team. As social identity theory suggests, people tend to identify with certain groups and view their group as better than others; this can lead to conflict and difficulty collaborating with people seen as part of a different group. This strained interaction arises due to the different goals, values, or interests of the separate teams. The ability to reconcile individual and communal creative visions shows paradoxical leadership and identities as architects both collaborate and think individually (Shahruddin & Husain, 2024).

Younger architects like Participant 1 worried about supply chain interoperability, as did Bargstädt (2015). Junior architects (4 and 10) did not give high-ranked administrative workflow challenges, which may imply that they are not required to manage key administrative duties like fee negotiations and programme allowances and may not be aware of BIM processes’ particular obstacles. Moreover, participants 3 and 5, both senior architects with extensive experience in project management, emphasised that costs and time constraints further exacerbated the difficulties of BIM processes. Fee breakdowns may not align with the rigorous time requirements of BIM, and the divergent use of software and the CDE can lead to inconsistencies in standards across a project. Architects may also experience time pressure when adjusting BIM activities or models to meet customer requirements. This factor has been identified as one of the main risks in architectural design (Tabarroki et al., 2024). Participants 5 and 9 noted these difficulties. Despite these challenges, the benefits of BIM cannot be denied, and these obstacles must be addressed to retain the trust and a favourable image of architects.

Figure 8 summarises the significant outcomes regarding opportunities and challenges of the duties of the architect.

Figure 8. Key challenges and opportunities summary.

Discussion

The discussion summarises the key considerations and contributions for the design, construction, and administrative duties of the architect.

Design RIBA stages 0–3

The study examines the dynamics between BIM and architectural design processes, shedding light on both the benefits and limitations inherent in BIM adoption. Singh, Gu, and Wang (2011) and Sacks, Eastman, Lee, and Teicholz (2018) have highlighted BIM's capacity to enhance collaboration, communication, and design risk minimisation, albeit at the expense of design freedom and potential inaccuracies in models. This phenomenon, as observed by the aforementioned authors, contributes to a perceived limitation on design exploration and flexibility, stifling architects’ creativity and bespoke design expression. Anchoring bias emerges as a plausible explanation for this phenomenon, as articulated by Tversky and Kahneman (1974) theory, where individuals may anchor their evaluations to existing information, inhibiting the exploration of alternative design concepts. Moreover, the cognitive costs associated with re-examining new material further compound this challenge, as elucidated by (Czerwinski, Cutrell, & Horvitz, 2000; Fogliato et al., 2022; Horvitz, Koch, & Apacible, 2004). In this context, efficient workflow processes that identify design conflicts early on mitigate the risk of costly changes later, facilitating the integration of bespoke ideas.

These critical insights into BIM's impact on architectural design processes underscore the need for a balanced approach that fosters collaboration, creativity, and risk mitigation, as delineated in the RIBA Stage of work 2020. By addressing communication barriers, cultural differences, and cognitive biases, architectural firms can navigate the tension between design freedom and BIM constraints, promoting innovative design exploration while harnessing the benefits of BIM technology during the early design stages.

Construction RIBA stages 4–6

The integration of BIM into construction stages 4–6 brings forth opportunities and challenges in enhancing site communication and risk allocation, as elucidated by Kymmell (2008), Noghabaei, Heydarian, Balali, and Han (2020)., and Zayas-Cabán et al. (2023). BIM's role in improving communication between architects and contractors is underscored, ensuring a comprehensive understanding of design intent and facilitating higher-quality construction outcomes. However, the efficacy of BIM workflows hinges on data quality and interoperability among stakeholders, as highlighted by Zayas-Cabán et al. (2023). Adherence to industry-wide standards and open data exchange formats is pivotal in enhancing data consistency, accuracy, and reusability, fostering seamless collaboration across project stakeholders. Nevertheless, interoperability concerns persist, impeding the flow of information between architects and stakeholders, as observed by Sacks et al. (2018) and Rathnasinghe, Wijewickrama, Kulatunga, and Jayasena (2020). Addressing these concerns necessitates equitable application of the Common Data Environment (CDE) across the design team, ensuring all stakeholders have access to critical project data. Additionally, the study identifies challenges associated with uncertain scopes of work and ambiguous risk allocation, as echoed by (Sabet, Zekavat, & Mostafa, 2018) and Sacks et al. (2018). By fostering open communication and leveraging BIM's traceability and auditability features, architectural firms can mitigate risks, promote accountability, and facilitate timely resolution of emerging issues during construction. These insights underscore the importance of addressing data quality, interoperability, and risk allocation challenges to harness the full potential of BIM in enhancing site communication and ensuring effective risk management during construction stages 4–6.

Administrative/ professional operations

Administrative activities are highlighted as pivotal in facilitating constructive dialogue between project strategies, designed structures, and their implementation. It highlights the expedited project workflows achievable through enhanced knowledge and traceable information within the Common Data Environment (CDE). Leveraging the CDE in BIM projects has been shown to mitigate conflicts and rework, saving valuable time and resources (Kymmell, 2008; Rathnasinghe et al., 2020). However, as noted by Sacks et al. (2018), resistance to changing established methods can impede industry participation in BIM adoption. Some professionals may be hesitant to deviate from proven processes, and inexperienced staff may struggle to adapt to new administrative systems. Nevertheless, the study underscores the potential of BIM to streamline administrative processes, enhance communication, and improve work quality. By harnessing the CDE and traceable information, architectural firms can minimise conflicts, rework, and delays, ultimately enhancing project delivery and quality (PDSI Construction consultants, 2019; Wright, 2012). Overcoming resistance to change requires stakeholder engagement, awareness promotion, and a demonstration of tangible benefits through pilot projects and case studies. Additionally, aligning fee structures and project requirements poses a challenge. Open dialogue and collaboration among stakeholders are essential for developing innovative fee models and project management strategies that align with the rigorous demands of BIM processes, ensuring equitable compensation and efficient resource allocation.

The proposed architects’ BIM matrix

Finally, the top-ranked concepts identified contribute to producing an architect’s BIM matrix to assist architects within a practice. The architect’s BIM matrix is fluid, develops with BIM processes, and seeks to organise the study findings into a complete examination of the emerging environment. Figure 9 shows the resulting matrix. The designed framework in Figure 9 seeks to situate project concepts on a timescale, notifying architects of opportunities and obstacles at various periods. The matrix combines the architectural workflow and BIM data. The schematic specifications are as follows. In response to Czmoch and Pękala (2014) and participant 3, a ‘funnel’ narrows from left to right, indicating how BIM’s demand on time, effort, and expenses eases in later stages. In response to participants 2 and 3’s concepts, the dashed line becomes solid at the end of stage 2, demonstrating BIM’s effectiveness from stage 3 onward. The curved blue line shows the cost and design impact. Once this line crosses stage 2, making modifications becomes difficult; therefore, the curve remains in the negative progressive half of the matrix. The north-curving red line depicts the development of documents/non-graphical data and graphical models following BIM information delivery cycle criteria (NBS, 2016). Each half of the diagram requires an administrative row that spans numerous project stages, unlike design and construction. Each row’s recommended statements were based on significant themes from the literature analysis and qualitative research.

Figure 9. The architects’ BIM matrix.

The framework highlights the significant impact that BIM may have on improving architectural practice. By aligning findings with project timelines, the framework enables architects to identify opportune moments and potential challenges within their workflows; facilitates risk reduction via proactive organisational planning; teaches inexperienced architects their role in the BIM process and improves model quality; assists senior architects in fee negotiations and resource management; and fosters an appreciation for the diverse BIM culture.

Conclusion

This study analyses how architects’ responsibilities have changed in light of technological progress, with a specific emphasis on the incorporation of Building Information Modelling (BIM) into architectural workflow processes. This study examines the pressing necessity for standardised protocols in the integration of technology, acknowledging the obstacles that have hindered efficiency and increased stress among professionals. By analysing the perspectives of architects who have adopted BIM, this study sheds light on the diverse effects that technology has on the processes of design and construction. The incorporation of BIM highlights a multitude of benefits, such as heightened efficiency, diminished risks, and improved quality, which are especially noticeable during the initial phases of design. Nonetheless, difficulties endure, particularly in the initial stages of implementation when there are conflicts between the freedom of design and the limitations imposed by BIM. BIM becomes an increasingly valuable instrument as projects advance, aiding in communication and mitigating errors that occur onsite. Despite this, the complexities of BIM implementation are highlighted by significant obstacles, including a dearth of adequately trained personnel and interoperability concerns.

This research addresses an important knowledge gap in the field of architecture by presenting a set of guidelines and a strategic path for the successful integration of BIM into actual construction projects in accordance with the work phases and schedules specified by the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA). The research underscores the revolutionary capacity of BIM, which grants architects of every rank enhanced flexibility, abilities to negotiate, and control over resources. Moreover, the study supports the notion of instituting a ‘BIM culture’ that fosters efficient collaboration and communication across the entire duration of the project. By taking into account both technical and human elements, it emphasises the capacity of BIM to improve the productivity and efficacy of workflows, thereby advancing architectural practice while safeguarding specialised knowledge. Further investigations into geographic disparities in BIM implementation and alternative procurement methods are among the avenues suggested by this study for future research. By utilising these insights, architectural professionals can effectively devise strategies to facilitate the wider adoption of BIM. The research underscores the mutually beneficial connection between technological advancement and architectural expertise, advocating for a cohesive integration in which BIM expedites the dissemination of information and analysis of models, all while augmenting architectural excellence. The study presents the BIM matrix, which provides a systematic framework for comprehending and capitalising on the revolutionary capabilities of technology in the construction and architecture sector. This framework facilitates the progression of novel ideas and developments in the field to improve its overall productivity.

Data availability

All the data is presented throughout the manuscript, and additions will be provided on request.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).